(28-11-2012 12:22 AM)I and I Wrote: Since you guys love capitalist that usually means a very little grasp on history.

Every foundation of capitalism from the beginning to today is based on force and not freedom. In the late 1600's and 1700's Adam Smith and many other economists spoke of "primitive accumulation". This meant accumulation of capital at the beginning of capitalism, this accumulation of capital and the creation of capitalism was done by forcing farmers off of their land to create a labor force that would occupy factories. The creation of a labor force that has no farming tools and no tools of production of their own can only survive by selling their labor power to another group of people or starve or live in extreme poverty. The workers are forced to sell their labor power, and during the time that they sell their labor power, they have no ownership or control of what their labor produces, unlike the farmer who owns what he farms, the workers is completely at the mercy of the capitalist class. In the U.S. the capitalist class even decides what the workers are paid. The worker doesn't even have a choice on deciding what he wants to sell his labor power for.

The benefits of early capitalism was obviously based on slave labor. Labor today doesn't need to be forced by whip, one needs to merely own the means of production under a capitalist system and he basically owns whatever the workers produces. The manipulation of governments to make this type of investment is often done by force or propping up dictators that use force and are friendly to western business.

To say that Capitalism is a "free market" is a total fucking joke. It's so free that capitalist countries keep having to prop up pro-business dictators and invade countries that are anti-capitalist. It's so free that you have to spend trillions of dollars in military weapons and the maintenance of military bases all over the world. That is what you call freedom? are you fucking serious?

Seriously I&I you're mistaking the theory with the practice, there's no true capitalist nor communist country in the world, at least no in their pure forms. That's because those are economic systems THEORIES extrapolated from observations of some characteristics of existing systems with some philosophy thrown in there to complicate things.

So, in theory, every system works wonders and it's supposed to lead to an utopia. BUT humans are so diverse that tend to break things that try to put them all in one system.

In practice, the so called capitalist countries, tend to work better because capitalism takes into account this human selfishness, and works as a self organizing system. The problem is, as you mentioned several times, that this system is not sustainable, not even in theory. Thus demanding a lot of energy (in the form of military force) to keep it running in the hope of attaining some level of stability.

Communism, on the other hand, appeals to people generosity and sense of community to work, but not everyone is like that, hence requiring a lot of control to make it happen. That's why communism usually tends to dictatorial political systems.

Both systems are prone to abuse and are flawed, because they both are based on limited aspects of human individual and social behaviour. Sadly, there's no alternative right now, there're some theories emerging here and there, but nothing really viable at the moment

(28-11-2012 12:22 AM)I and I Wrote: Since you guys love capitalist that usually means a very little grasp on history.

Every foundation of capitalism from the beginning to today is based on force and not freedom. In the late 1600's and 1700's Adam Smith and many other economists spoke of "primitive accumulation". This meant accumulation of capital at the beginning of capitalism, this accumulation of capital and the creation of capitalism was done by forcing farmers off of their land to create a labor force that would occupy factories. The creation of a labor force that has no farming tools and no tools of production of their own can only survive by selling their labor power to another group of people or starve or live in extreme poverty. The workers are forced to sell their labor power, and during the time that they sell their labor power, they have no ownership or control of what their labor produces, unlike the farmer who owns what he farms, the workers is completely at the mercy of the capitalist class. In the U.S. the capitalist class even decides what the workers are paid. The worker doesn't even have a choice on deciding what he wants to sell his labor power for.

The benefits of early capitalism was obviously based on slave labor. Labor today doesn't need to be forced by whip, one needs to merely own the means of production under a capitalist system and he basically owns whatever the workers produces. The manipulation of governments to make this type of investment is often done by force or propping up dictators that use force and are friendly to western business.

To say that Capitalism is a "free market" is a total fucking joke. It's so free that capitalist countries keep having to prop up pro-business dictators and invade countries that are anti-capitalist. It's so free that you have to spend trillions of dollars in military weapons and the maintenance of military bases all over the world. That is what you call freedom? are you fucking serious?

Seriously I&I you're mistaking the theory with the practice, there's no true capitalist nor communist country in the world, at least no in their pure forms. That's because those are economic systems THEORIES extrapolated from observations of some characteristics of existing systems with some philosophy thrown in there to complicate things.

So, in theory, every system works wonders and it's supposed to lead to an utopia. BUT humans are so diverse that tend to break things that try to put them all in one system.

In practice, the so called capitalist countries, tend to work better because capitalism takes into account this human selfishness, and works as a self organizing system. The problem is, as you mentioned several times, that this system is not sustainable, not even in theory. Thus demanding a lot of energy (in the form of military force) to keep it running in the hope of attaining some level of stability.

Communism, on the other hand, appeals to people generosity and sense of community to work, but not everyone is like that, hence requiring a lot of control to make it happen. That's why communism usually tends to dictatorial political systems.

Both systems are prone to abuse and are flawed, because they both are based on limited aspects of human individual and social behaviour. Sadly, there's no alternative right now, there're some theories emerging here and there, but nothing really viable at the moment

I don't believe that there is a "human nature" in that humans are naturally selfish or not selfish, that is a philosophical debate though.

Your post is correct but capitalistm requires much control also and is no less likely to be dictatorial. Example: China can prosper without having to have military bases around the world or prop up dictators, the U.S. however has depended on it's military and support of dictators to maintain their capitalist economy. Capitalism only appeals to a small minority of people in which the laws and governments are structure to benefit them. Communism in Latin America is thriving and many people in Latin America support these communist governments. The capitalist ideology is all around us, it is through consumerism that we are taught that one is a better person if they own the newest pair of shoes, or wear the latest make up. Consumerism is the religion that so called atheist neo liberal capitalists whip their backs and bloody their knees over.

(28-11-2012 12:36 AM)nach_in Wrote: Seriously I&I you're mistaking the theory with the practice, there's no true capitalist nor communist country in the world, at least no in their pure forms. That's because those are economic systems THEORIES extrapolated from observations of some characteristics of existing systems with some philosophy thrown in there to complicate things.

So, in theory, every system works wonders and it's supposed to lead to an utopia. BUT humans are so diverse that tend to break things that try to put them all in one system.

In practice, the so called capitalist countries, tend to work better because capitalism takes into account this human selfishness, and works as a self organizing system. The problem is, as you mentioned several times, that this system is not sustainable, not even in theory. Thus demanding a lot of energy (in the form of military force) to keep it running in the hope of attaining some level of stability.

Communism, on the other hand, appeals to people generosity and sense of community to work, but not everyone is like that, hence requiring a lot of control to make it happen. That's why communism usually tends to dictatorial political systems.

Both systems are prone to abuse and are flawed, because they both are based on limited aspects of human individual and social behaviour. Sadly, there's no alternative right now, there're some theories emerging here and there, but nothing really viable at the moment

I don't believe that there is a "human nature" in that humans are naturally selfish or not selfish, that is a philosophical debate though.

Your post is correct but capitalistm requires much control also and is no less likely to be dictatorial. Example: China can prosper without having to have military bases around the world or prop up dictators, the U.S. however has depended on it's military and support of dictators to maintain their capitalist economy. Capitalism only appeals to a small minority of people in which the laws and governments are structure to benefit them. Communism in Latin America is thriving and many people in Latin America support these communist governments. The capitalist ideology is all around us, it is through consumerism that we are taught that one is a better person if they own the newest pair of shoes, or wear the latest make up. Consumerism is the religion that so called atheist neo liberal capitalists whip their backs and bloody their knees over.

I don't know if you read a previous post of mine, but I'll say it again: there's no communism in Latin America. There's a social discourse with socialist rhetoric, but the actual policies are very capitalist.

About the human nature, you're right is very debatable, but I think we can agree that at least we humans are messy with this stuff, we never seem to agree easily on how to manage the resources

About the US using military force and supporting dictatorships to support their way of life, I also agree and is as I said before one of the flaws of capitalism.

About China, they're not prospering thanks to communism, their prospering because they have a very cheap workforce and they play the international trade and financial games very well (both games are products of capitalism).

(28-11-2012 12:56 AM)I and I Wrote: I don't believe that there is a "human nature" in that humans are naturally selfish or not selfish, that is a philosophical debate though.

Your post is correct but capitalistm requires much control also and is no less likely to be dictatorial. Example: China can prosper without having to have military bases around the world or prop up dictators, the U.S. however has depended on it's military and support of dictators to maintain their capitalist economy. Capitalism only appeals to a small minority of people in which the laws and governments are structure to benefit them. Communism in Latin America is thriving and many people in Latin America support these communist governments. The capitalist ideology is all around us, it is through consumerism that we are taught that one is a better person if they own the newest pair of shoes, or wear the latest make up. Consumerism is the religion that so called atheist neo liberal capitalists whip their backs and bloody their knees over.

I don't know if you read a previous post of mine, but I'll say it again: there's no communism in Latin America. There's a social discourse with socialist rhetoric, but the actual policies are very capitalist.

About the human nature, you're right is very debatable, but I think we can agree that at least we humans are messy with this stuff, we never seem to agree easily on how to manage the resources

About the US using military force and supporting dictatorships to support their way of life, I also agree and is as I said before one of the flaws of capitalism.

About China, they're not prospering thanks to communism, their prospering because they have a very cheap workforce and they play the international trade and financial games very well (both games are products of capitalism).

The Latin american model is the marxist-leninist model. According to Lenins interpretation of marx, a transition from capitalism to communism is to be done in a way as to not shock the economy. What many latin american countries are doing is applying a gradually increasing grip and control of the economy and slowly fazing out the need of a capitalist class altogether.

You're talking about Venezuela, that's one country, and it's not as communist as you may think. To understand how the economy works in latin america you have to understand that we're not as rich as other countries and that we have a common history and language.
The first thing encourages protectionist policies that too often are confused with trying to control everything like in a communist regime. But those policies are actually attempts to cut the dependence of the region on Europe or the US.
The second, is an unused strength that today we're trying to harness to form a strong region with strong countries.

Venezuela is a particular case, they have oil, and you can't have oil and not give it to the US without a full opposition, that includes talking like a communist, but Chavez is very happy to sell the oil to other south american countries, that's not very communist of him.

They don't want to faze out the capitalist class, they want to empower the working and middle class so we have sustainable means of production of our own.

(28-11-2012 02:03 AM)nach_in Wrote: You're talking about Venezuela, that's one country, and it's not as communist as you may think. To understand how the economy works in latin america you have to understand that we're not as rich as other countries and that we have a common history and language.
The first thing encourages protectionist policies that too often are confused with trying to control everything like in a communist regime. But those policies are actually attempts to cut the dependence of the region on Europe or the US.
The second, is an unused strength that today we're trying to harness to form a strong region with strong countries.

Venezuela is a particular case, they have oil, and you can't have oil and not give it to the US without a full opposition, that includes talking like a communist, but Chavez is very happy to sell the oil to other south american countries, that's not very communist of him.

They don't want to faze out the capitalist class, they want to empower the working and middle class so we have sustainable means of production of our own.

yes, and that is exactly what Marx and Lenin referred to as the transition phase. By making the working class and middle class stronger, one is gradually easing the control and power of the capitalist class in it's economic and political control over the economy.

Since Chavez became president, the rampant fraud and abuse by the capitalist class has decreased and the empowerment of the working people has increased.

Lenin proposed a Chavez like solution for Russia just before he died. Lenin wanted to keep private ownership legal but have strict regulations and taxes on it gradually decreasing the power of the capitalist class.

Then stalin gets in there and is like "fuck this man, lets just kill them" lol

(28-11-2012 02:03 AM)nach_in Wrote: You're talking about Venezuela, that's one country, and it's not as communist as you may think. To understand how the economy works in latin america you have to understand that we're not as rich as other countries and that we have a common history and language.
The first thing encourages protectionist policies that too often are confused with trying to control everything like in a communist regime. But those policies are actually attempts to cut the dependence of the region on Europe or the US.
The second, is an unused strength that today we're trying to harness to form a strong region with strong countries.

Venezuela is a particular case, they have oil, and you can't have oil and not give it to the US without a full opposition, that includes talking like a communist, but Chavez is very happy to sell the oil to other south american countries, that's not very communist of him.

They don't want to faze out the capitalist class, they want to empower the working and middle class so we have sustainable means of production of our own.

yes, and that is exactly what Marx and Lenin referred to as the transition phase. By making the working class and middle class stronger, one is gradually easing the control and power of the capitalist class in it's economic and political control over the economy.

Since Chavez became president, the rampant fraud and abuse by the capitalist class has decreased and the empowerment of the working people has increased.

Lenin proposed a Chavez like solution for Russia just before he died. Lenin wanted to keep private ownership legal but have strict regulations and taxes on it gradually decreasing the power of the capitalist class.

Then stalin gets in there and is like "fuck this man, lets just kill them" lol

lol indeed

Maybe, history will give us the answer. That's the tricky thing about transition stages, you can never be sure until they're completed or not.

But all that doesn't mean that communism is a better system altogether. Although there're many who support this new old ideas there're those who oppose and they are a lot, even in the poorer sectors of society. And even if it's supported doesn't mean it's better, it only means it's more popular.

(27-11-2012 10:54 PM)Styrofoam02 Wrote: fruits of your labor does not mean the "means of production" It means that if I am paid 10$/hour I should be allowed to keep the full 10$ an hour and do with it what I want.

And by force through violence, i mean that if I don't want to pay your "tax" to "redistribute" my wealth... then I would be forced through violent means. And I feel that the initiation of violence is the morally wrong.

Should workers be forced to sell their labor power to someone else to survive? If not, then you should be fine with workers collectively deciding the price of their labor to sell on the market, or if workers collectively decide to not even sell their labor power at all and decide to use their labor power to create a new system for themselves. You keep talking of freedom, I am sure you would be fine with workers doing those things correct?

So long as it isn't violent, sure. I am okay with this. But, if the laborers are planning on overthrowing the factory owners and STEALING their property and using it as their own.... I'm not cool with that. That is initiation of force and it is wrong. Look of voluntarism, that is what I believe in. And the free market is the only thing that allows for voluntarism, everything else is coercion through force or the threat of force. Which i find morally objectionable.

(28-11-2012 12:09 AM)I and I Wrote: Should workers be forced to sell their labor power to someone else to survive? If not, then you should be fine with workers collectively deciding the price of their labor to sell on the market, or if workers collectively decide to not even sell their labor power at all and decide to use their labor power to create a new system for themselves. You keep talking of freedom, I am sure you would be fine with workers doing those things correct?

So long as it isn't violent, sure. I am okay with this. But, if the laborers are planning on overthrowing the factory owners and STEALING their property and using it as their own.... I'm not cool with that. That is initiation of force and it is wrong. Look of voluntarism, that is what I believe in. And the free market is the only thing that allows for voluntarism, everything else is coercion through force or the threat of force. Which i find morally objectionable.

The profits of other peoples labor being being controlled and owned privately by another group is a law that was made up from the capitalist system, tailored from older slave labor laws. There is nothing holy about this or any other law, if the majority rises up and wants to end the capitalist system then that is the peoples exercise of freedom in choosing their own destiny. You somehow believe capitalism and it's laws are somehow holy and should last forever?